NYT shocked, shocked to find Palin has anti-establishment principles

posted at 12:05 pm on September 9, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

I seriously have no words to introduce this news story from the New York Times:

Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin surfaced to say something intelligent and wise and fresh about the present American condition, many of us would fail to hear it.

That is not how we’re primed to see Ms. Palin. A pugnacious Tea Partyer? Sure. A woman of the people? Yup. A Mama Grizzly? You betcha.

But something curious happened when Ms. Palin strode onto the stage last weekend at a Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa. Along with her familiar and predictable swipes at President Barack Obama and the “far left,” she delivered a devastating indictment of the entire U.S. political establishment — left, right and center — and pointed toward a way of transcending the presently unbridgeable political divide.

A “curious thing”? Really? Sarah Palin has been doing that very thing, almost uninterrupted, for her entire political career. Regardless of what people might think of her chances for political office or her activism, Palin has been an anti-establishment voice from the very beginning.

In 2011, the New York Times thinks this is news. I actually had to triple-check this article to make sure it didn’t fall under the Opinion section. I don’t want to take too many swipes at Anand Giridharadas for finally getting around to noticing this, but if the Gray Lady took three years to suddenly discover that Palin was an anti-establishment populist who takes on both parties, then that really says something about their approach to the news.

Palin took on the Republican Party in Alaska, blowing the whistle on corruption in the GOP in Alaska as a member of the state oil commission. She rode that reputation to the governor’s office, where she fought the oil companies to protect Alaska’s interests in its natural resources. Did they not bother to find out these two basic facts about her political career when the Times and other national media outlets busied themselves reporting on the used tanning bed Palin bought with her own money?

Giridharadas reports on the new discoveries from her Indianola speech:

But when her throat was cleared at last, Ms. Palin had something considerably more substantive to say.

She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

Palin has been making that point on the national stage for more than two years, since Republicans lost to Barack Obama in 2008. If the Times had bothered to cover her objectively, they wouldn’t have waited until 2011 to notice this. But like most of the national media, they’ve been much more interested in covering Levi Johnston than the Tea Parties.

Something tells me, though, that the Times knew this all along. I’m guessing that their sudden interest in the substantive Palin has less to do with being shocked, shocked to find that she’s anti-establishment than in subtly encouraging her to jump into the GOP race, which they might see as a way to split Republicans and keep Barack Obama in office. That’s flawed, too, but having seen their subtle encouragement of John McCain and their disgusting smears of him as soon as he wrapped up the nomination in 2008, their sudden appreciation for Palin has me just a wee bit suspicious.

Update: One commenter points out that the author calls this a “column,” and not a news story. Fair point, but it’s also in the NYT’s US news section, not its opinion section.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

…having seen their subtle encouragement of John McCain and their disgusting smears of him as soon as he wrapped up the nomination in 2008, their sudden appreciation for Palin has me just a wee bit suspicious.

I would argue that neither Palin nor any other Republican has a serious interest in opposing any concentration of power in private institutions. She pays lip service to it in speeches, but she’s never proposed any sort of solution. Whenever Palin mentions specifics, they all revolve around protecting any and all accumulation of private power and wealth.

That’s flawed, too, but having seen their subtle encouragement of John McCain and their disgusting smears of him as soon as he wrapped up the nomination in 2008, their sudden appreciation for Palin has me just a wee bit suspicious.

I agree, but the difference is I think they’ve kinda shot their wad. Of course they could just make up stuff like usual.

I would argue that neither Palin nor any other Republican has a serious interest in opposing any concentration of power in private institutions. She pays lip service to it in speeches, but she’s never proposed any sort of solution. Whenever Palin mentions specifics, they all revolve around protecting any and all accumulation of private power and wealth.

ernesto on September 9, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Sarah is a patriot first, a Republican by having little choice of alternatives…

I’m guessing that their sudden interest in the substantive Palin has less to do with being shocked, shocked to find that she’s anti-establishment than in subtly encouraging her to jump into the GOP race, which they might see as a way to split Republicans and keep Barack Obama in office.

That’s exactly what they’re doing.

You KNOW internal polling for Obama must be horrible for the NYT to have to resort to writing puff pieces for Palin.

She should come out swinging and tell them to stuff it; Obama’s a goner and the NYT can’t save him.

SP and RP are great friends and love the country more than themselves. They’ll work it out. The media can implode professionally and explode otherwise. They are the only ones lauding the 961 absent goon who lectures us to “get urgency in creating jobs”. He can go to Hell, take Hoffa and Trumka, and the GE types with him.

I would argue that neither Palin nor any other Republican has a serious interest in opposing any concentration of power in private institutions. She pays lip service to it in speeches, but she’s never proposed any sort of solution. Whenever Palin mentions specifics, they all revolve around protecting any and all accumulation of private power and wealth.

ernesto on September 9, 2011 at 12:10 PM

That goes against her entire history in politics, which I’m sure you know nothing about.

Love Sarah, just can’t stand many of her supporters. Glad she’s participating in the discussion.

kerrhome on September 9, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Thanks for your concern Ann and Laura.

I am one of her “cult” supporters and proud of it. You guys better layoff the Palin supporter insults b/c if she doesn’t run you’ll need the support down the road. And right now, no one in this field excites me (or many of her supporters). In fact, the more I learn about my own Governor Perry, the less I’m impressed with him.

BTW, thanks for a fair piece Ed. Now if idiot bloggers like Ace would get the message.

Suspicious, maybe. It’s still “news” for NYT readers. Some heads may explode, and knowing the backlash from their readers they published the article anyway. Good for them.
I want her to run. Americans need to hear her ideas, which will resonant with many. Whether she wins or not, the conversation will move toward Conservatism and cronyism because of Palin. We need that.
conservative pilgrim on September 9, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Oh, I don’t know. The author seems to be trying to paint Palin as a closet leftist.

Whenever Palin mentions specifics, they all revolve around protecting any and all accumulation of private power and wealth.

ernesto on September 9, 2011 at 12:10 PM

And that’s your real problem. While you believe the individual’s wealth (or most of it) is the property of the government and the government decides how to spend the individual’s wealth, Palin and the majority of Americans believe the individual’s wealth belongs to the individual who earned it, not the government.

Everyone I know loves here here, but it’s many of her supporters on this site and other sites that have the thinnest skin of any candidate’s supporters out there.

I support Palin. So does my wife. So do our parents. So do my church friends and brothers/sisters.

I can’t even complain about her supporters on this site without getting a snarky reply like “I doubt you know many of her supporters”.

Seriously? We love her, but hate her thin skinned supporters who cannot accept even the slightest criticism. These “supporters” do not convince others to support her. They alienate others. Do you really think Sarah is saying “yeah these guys are really helping me out”? I think not.

Again, I love Sarah as does all of my family, but someone will still attack me. Sarah hasn’t done anything wrong. Her priorities are right and she speaks the truth.

The NYT likes her? Did none of you Palinistas see the sarcastic tone that the first half of that piece used?

Red Cloud on September 9, 2011 at 12:18 PM

It’s not that the NYT likes her. I don’t think more than a couple people here would assert that. But the Palinistas are primarily and properly suspicious that the NYT wrote a piece about Sarah Palin that has some truth to it — especially since it took 3+ years for them to do it.

People like you prove my point exactly. I can say until I’m blue in the face that Sarah has the right priorities and message. Today I can’t even talk about how some of her rabid supporters turn others off without coming under attack. I would support Sarah over all others if she runs, but go ahead and attack me. You’re convincing so many people to follow Sarah you know.

Love Sarah, just can’t stand many of her supporters. Glad she’s participating in the discussion.

kerrhome on September 9, 2011 at 12:10 PM

I wish you folks would stop with that idiocy. “Her supporters” won’t be governing if she were to be elected, she would. And as you already know if you have paid the least bit of attention, she doesn’t pretend to be deaf to anyone but her “closest pals”, in the Chicago way. She listens to the greater voice of the American people, something nobody currently running has been doing.

Claiming that Gov. Palin’s “overzealous supporters” is a reason to not vote for the person most closely aligned with the values, priorities and desires of American patriots, is beyond shallow and imbecilic. It’s wrong.

But will she fall for it?
Cindy Munford on September 9, 2011 at 12:19 PM

In order for that to happen, the first step would be for this to even make her radar.

Millions of people hang on Palin’s every word – she’s almost as big as Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck combined. The NYT is down to less than a half-million subscribers. And how many of them read it for its political coverage, as opposed to crosswords, social registers, want ads, or simply because it’s their local paper? Maybe a few tens of thousands. It’s the print equivalent of MSNBC.

I do, I just hate her rabid supporters. Sarah is not the problem here. I didn’t say I don’t support Sarah. I’d support her above other candidates, but that doesn’t matter. I’m still attacked for even complaining about some of the nuts that follow her and turn so many others off.

Today I can’t even talk about how some of her rabid supporters turn others off without coming under attack. I would support Sarah over all others if she runs, but go ahead and attack me. You’re convincing so many people to follow Sarah you know.

People like you prove my point exactly. I can say until I’m blue in the face that Sarah has the right priorities and message. Today I can’t even talk about how some of her rabid supporters turn others off without coming under attack. I would support Sarah over all others if she runs, but go ahead and attack me. You’re convincing so many people to follow Sarah you know.

kerrhome on September 9, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Dude, you start off the conversation saying how much you like Palin but hate her supporters. Exactly what kind of response did you expect? Your comment was guaranteed to validate your view.

I’m guessing that their sudden interest in the substantive Palin has less to do with being shocked, shocked to find that she’s anti-establishment than in subtly encouraging her to jump into the GOP race, which they might see as a way to split Republicans and keep Barack Obama in office.

Negative imo. It may be more about selling newspapers or a case of one rogue journalist. I really do not think Gov Palin has been waiting all this time for a positive write-up from this leftist rag, long declining in influence, in order to finally make up her mind. Maybe everything doesn’t need to be a conspiracy. Maybe it just is what it is–honesty.

I agree. In the meantime though, I can’t wait for next week’s NYT article on how helicopter wolf hunts actually make for healthier wolf packs and caribou herds and the op ed that calls out the Trigg truthers.

Palin’s anti-establishmentarianism is just part of her appea. The very fact that she talks, looks, and acts like an average American” who is anything but average is what has endeared her to so many and outraged those looking for a reaching-across-the-aisle, Brylcream-wearing Washington Elitist.

Palin is the real deal. However, she’s not going to make her decision, one way or the other, based on our time schedule.

Did we read the same article? She’s exposing the cronyism of the big corporations, career politicians, lobbyists, et. al. There’s anti-cronyism for everyone, not just Lefties.
conservative pilgrim on September 9, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Agreed, but look at the author’s tone. There is an overtone of that old “false conciouness” meme.

One of the characteristics of the establishment, though, is that they all pander to illegal aliens, (or more accurately, they are in the loop of those that profit from their exploitation), and Palin is right in with the rest of the crown on the issue, so far.

An open and honest discussion of the problems that are destroying America must include discussion of illegal immigration, and rewarding tens of millions of illegal foreign colonials only encourages more, as history proves. That sad fact dictates that the only way this problem can be solved is to stop rewarding illegal immigrants. Then they will self deport; returning home to help improve their own countries for a change, instead of allowing them to turn into cesspools of crime that now threaten our nation. That means that we must not provide legal status of any sort, and we have to stop giving them taxpayer funded candy.

The polls show that this is an huge winning issue and can help save America! The only people who will regret it is a small minority of corrupt politicians and their cronies.

No one thinks her supporters will be governing. Again, but you can’t even accept that her rabid supporters turn others off. Do you really think that’s the case? You think a moderate out there is going to hear crap from a rabid supporter and think oh yeah, she sounds good. Do you think Sarah wants this support? She’s not Ron Paul.

I’ve never once said I wouldn’t support her. Go back and read what I wrote. You folks just make stuff up and attack without reading or thinking. I SUPPORT SARAH, but attack away.

There are quite a few of you folks that clearly have been brainwashed by the Ann Coulters of the world.

There is one chance in the 2012 election that we elect someone that will actually make a substantive difference for the good, and her name is Sarah Palin.

Really, it is silly to think that a career pol like Perry will be anything but another W, or that Mitt would not be exactly like Bush 41

Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, maybe Santorum, would be better than Perry or Romney, but why should we not elect a candidate that is a natural and that gets the whole “we dont want to work for the government” or be beholden to the bloody lobbyist culture in DC

I am confident Palin is getting in and I am also confident that in Jan 2013 we will be at the presidential inauguration for her in Washington

If she runs she splits the votes, creates chaos in the Republican party, which is exactly what the Dem’s want.

Her career and credibility will be shot.

Knucklehead on September 9, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Vote splitting in the primaries is not a bad thing, Knuck. The only vote splitting I’m concerned about is if someone else runs a 3rd-party spoiler in the general. I can say with the utmost in confidence that if it happens, it won’t be Sarah Palin doing it.

Splitting votes, indeed. Am I the only one here concerned that by some accounts we seem to have wrapped up our nominating process before the first caucus in Iowa?!

which they might see as a way to split Republicans and keep Barack Obama in office

Or they could be seeing how the gop establishment is now attacking Palin and have decided to see why the gop establishment doesn’t like her.

unseen on September 9, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Exactly, right on unseen.
The “unelectable” argument never take into account the Palin Democrat Effect.
I welcome Democrats that Palin can reach. Palin detractors can vote for Obama or stay home. It’s not going to even matter.